Rants and Musings: Severus Snape and the Doctrine of the Calvinists (with apologies to Hemmens)
![[info]](http://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
I was browsing through some old DH rants and reviews a while back and rediscovered Dan Hemmens' excellent essay, "Harry Potter and the Doctrine of the Calvinists" posted over at Ferretbrain. Hemmens, IMHO, does a fantastic job in putting together a coherent, workable theory of just what on god's green earth is going on in the Potterverse and how it can so blatantly propose a clear double standard on just about every major moral issue it touches. My question, after rereading the article, was: what about the characters' own worldviews, within the books? Particularly Severus', considering how he fought so hard, for so long, out of an apparent belief that he could in this way somehow make up for his earlier failing/s and thereby earn something - praise, respect, or even just a respite. A change in category, if you like. Redemption. But where does he get this idea, if the world is so clearly and definitively Sorted into the Elect and the Not? You'd think seven years of Hogwarts under the Marauders would have given him a clue, but apparently not. So what gives? What IS his world-view, in comparison with his contemporaries'? Well, I've got a theory. More behind the cut.
This is, I warn you, not an actual essay with a proper argument, just some ranting thoughts about how Severus fits into the Potterverse in light of Hemmens' theory. I intend to come back later and post a proper essay on the subject sometime, with more coverage given to just why the notion of Severus as a Catholic (in the character of his world-view, not necessarily in formal practice) makes a lot of sense to me. In the meantime: I do hope no-one takes offense at anything I say here - I'm not attempting any kind of judgment of any religious tradition, merely examining how the implications of Hemmens' theory work out on the level of the characters themselves and their world-outlooks. That is: how a Potterverse character's view of the world can clash, or not, with the view of the world the books themselves lay out, and what this can mean for the characters, including - of course - our poor dear Sev.
Link to Hemmens' article, a definite read if you haven't already: http://www.ferretbrain.com/articles/arti
This is, I warn you, not an actual essay with a proper argument, just some ranting thoughts about how Severus fits into the Potterverse in light of Hemmens' theory. I intend to come back later and post a proper essay on the subject sometime, with more coverage given to just why the notion of Severus as a Catholic (in the character of his world-view, not necessarily in formal practice) makes a lot of sense to me. In the meantime: I do hope no-one takes offense at anything I say here - I'm not attempting any kind of judgment of any religious tradition, merely examining how the implications of Hemmens' theory work out on the level of the characters themselves and their world-outlooks. That is: how a Potterverse character's view of the world can clash, or not, with the view of the world the books themselves lay out, and what this can mean for the characters, including - of course - our poor dear Sev.
Link to Hemmens' article, a definite read if you haven't already: http://www.ferretbrain.com/articles/arti
For those unfamiliar with the article, Hemmens' thesis is essentially that the Potterverse operates according to the Calvinist doctrine of Election (either you're simply among the Elect, saved, redeemed by grace, etc., or you're not, and you can't do a damn thing about it because your actions have no bearing upon your ultimate moral status) as understood by a Cultural Christian, rather than within the actual theological context that gave rise to it. As Hemmens puts it, Rowling's world "really does work the way atheists perceive Calvinist Election as working." We might say that in the Potterverse the Pseudo-Calvinists have gotten their way, and have decided that a hat (yes, a HAT) shall have final say over who is Teh Good and who Not.
In other words, the chosen ones [aka Gryffindors] can do whatever they please and it's Teh Good, while those singled out as being, deep down, irredeemably Teh Evul [Slytherin] will get kicked down for doing anything, because they're Teh Evul and that's how it works. Regardless of whatever tripe about love, choice, and righteousness is on the menu today.
But what about the individual characters - how do they perceive the world as working, and what effect does their perception have on their actions? Who, in the basic character of their world outlook (leaving aside the issue of actual religious practice in the WW - that's another matter), are the (Pseudo-)Calvinists, who the mainline Protestants, etc.? Note that getting how Teh Rules work, and actually being among the Elect, have nothing causal to do with one another. That is, you can 'get it' and still be screwed, not get it and be saved, be saved/screwed and KNOW it, or somewhere in between.
Harry, of course, has learned the proper course of things at the knee of Ol' White-Beard himself, the fount of all wisdom, and by the end of DH has so thoroughly taken this 'wisdom' to heart that he quite uncomplainingly marches off to his own death in the company of his suicide-cult-aka-family. He then gets to come BACK because he's Teh Ultimate Good and it's his fate, but I'm sure that knowing that all is going as it should helps his sanity along the way. Clearly the pinnacle of Pseudo-Calvinist thinking. Dumbles too, the master manipulator. They accept their fates with nary a complaint and all goes well.
Voldie, poor guy, either doesn't get it at all or totally gets it and is enjoying every second of the ride. Bellatrix, like a number of other DE's, probably has gotten it and has decided that if she's among the ranks of Teh Evul, well, she might as well enjoy it. The two side wheels of Harry's Tricycle of Teh Good Jr. seem to have imbibed enough Pseudo-Calvinist doctrine to make their way well enough in the WW (being among the Elect certainly helps in this regard). Ron the pureblood Gryffindor, like his family, seems to me to be a touch clearer in his grasp of Teh Rules, while Hermione (influenced by her Muggle upbringing?) wavers occasionally for a little while before she really gets it - possibly tempted by the general Protestant notion of salvation by faith alone. I suspect quite a few Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws fall somewhere along this section of the spectrum too.
And Severus?
Severus, poor guy, is a Catholic.
I mean, the silly sod actually thinks he can change his fate, by doing things! By trying to do Good (TM)! In the name of the mother and child! He actually thinks his devotion to the Queen of the Elect herself and her Glorious Son might earn him something! Like, a get-out-of-Hell-with-maybe-a-limb-intact-c
"the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
Where does he get this stubborn idea that he can change anyway, though? My theory - or the theory lying behind the Severus who appears in my current in-progress fic, at least - is that Severus' family, on the Muggle side, was Catholic, and that whatever his current status vis-a-vis actual religious practice or belief in God, his general OUTLOOK is fundamentally shaped by the notion that redemption, forgiveness, CHANGE, is possible if one devotes oneself to working hard at it.
Sometimes we Sort too soon, my foot. Aaargh, JKR just pisses me off sometimes. Anyway, that's all for now, folks. Like I say above, eventally I hope to get around to writing a proper essay on this subject. Until then: Toughts? Comments? Major silly typos or lapses in logic in the above post? ;)
In other words, the chosen ones [aka Gryffindors] can do whatever they please and it's Teh Good, while those singled out as being, deep down, irredeemably Teh Evul [Slytherin] will get kicked down for doing anything, because they're Teh Evul and that's how it works. Regardless of whatever tripe about love, choice, and righteousness is on the menu today.
But what about the individual characters - how do they perceive the world as working, and what effect does their perception have on their actions? Who, in the basic character of their world outlook (leaving aside the issue of actual religious practice in the WW - that's another matter), are the (Pseudo-)Calvinists, who the mainline Protestants, etc.? Note that getting how Teh Rules work, and actually being among the Elect, have nothing causal to do with one another. That is, you can 'get it' and still be screwed, not get it and be saved, be saved/screwed and KNOW it, or somewhere in between.
Harry, of course, has learned the proper course of things at the knee of Ol' White-Beard himself, the fount of all wisdom, and by the end of DH has so thoroughly taken this 'wisdom' to heart that he quite uncomplainingly marches off to his own death in the company of his suicide-cult-aka-family. He then gets to come BACK because he's Teh Ultimate Good and it's his fate, but I'm sure that knowing that all is going as it should helps his sanity along the way. Clearly the pinnacle of Pseudo-Calvinist thinking. Dumbles too, the master manipulator. They accept their fates with nary a complaint and all goes well.
Voldie, poor guy, either doesn't get it at all or totally gets it and is enjoying every second of the ride. Bellatrix, like a number of other DE's, probably has gotten it and has decided that if she's among the ranks of Teh Evul, well, she might as well enjoy it. The two side wheels of Harry's Tricycle of Teh Good Jr. seem to have imbibed enough Pseudo-Calvinist doctrine to make their way well enough in the WW (being among the Elect certainly helps in this regard). Ron the pureblood Gryffindor, like his family, seems to me to be a touch clearer in his grasp of Teh Rules, while Hermione (influenced by her Muggle upbringing?) wavers occasionally for a little while before she really gets it - possibly tempted by the general Protestant notion of salvation by faith alone. I suspect quite a few Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws fall somewhere along this section of the spectrum too.
And Severus?
Severus, poor guy, is a Catholic.
I mean, the silly sod actually thinks he can change his fate, by doing things! By trying to do Good (TM)! In the name of the mother and child! He actually thinks his devotion to the Queen of the Elect herself and her Glorious Son might earn him something! Like, a get-out-of-Hell-with-maybe-a-limb-intact-c
"the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
Where does he get this stubborn idea that he can change anyway, though? My theory - or the theory lying behind the Severus who appears in my current in-progress fic, at least - is that Severus' family, on the Muggle side, was Catholic, and that whatever his current status vis-a-vis actual religious practice or belief in God, his general OUTLOOK is fundamentally shaped by the notion that redemption, forgiveness, CHANGE, is possible if one devotes oneself to working hard at it.
Sometimes we Sort too soon, my foot. Aaargh, JKR just pisses me off sometimes. Anyway, that's all for now, folks. Like I say above, eventally I hope to get around to writing a proper essay on this subject. Until then: Toughts? Comments? Major silly typos or lapses in logic in the above post? ;)
the silly sod actually thinks he can change his fate, by doing things! By trying to do Good (TM)! In the name of the mother and child! He actually thinks his devotion to the Queen of the Elect herself and her Glorious Son might earn him something!
Yes! Sev's devotion to Lily, like the knight's devotion to his lady, does reflect the Catholic devotion to Mary. I had just never seen this in precisely this way before, so thanks for putting it into words.
OTOH, as I said in another essay, there are mainline Protestants (Anglicans/Episcopaleans, for example) who also believe firmly in the necessity of works and the possibility of redemption. But Severus has always come across as a Catholic to me, not only because of his devotion to Lily (and the Lily is Mary's flower) and his repentance, but also because it fits what we know of his background (poor, working-class, North of England) and even his physical appearance.
Good rant, anyway.
Response Part I
Hemmen’s essay, while quite interesting in many ways, thoroughly misses one of the crucial aspects of Calvinism which runs well counter to much of what we see in the HP series.
In Calvinistic thought it is correct that, as Hemmen says, “Very roughly (from my limited understanding) the Calvinists embrace fully the idea that it is impossible for any human being to be truly worthy of God's love. God is just that great and we are just that flawed.”
This statement, however, is incorrect: “since obviously not everybody can be saved, God's grace will only fall on a small proportion of the population” There is nothing in Calvinist doctrine that says that “obviously not everybody can be saved” and in fact, within the doctrine it would be technically conceivable that all *could* be saved – there is certainly no limited number possible. The point is that no one could earn God’s favor nor make themselves a better person without God’s intentional work within them to change. But even more, the doctrine states that when God’s grace is extended, it includes actual change within that person, brought about by God’s spirit. This is one of the aspects of what is called “irresistible grace”. Therefore, if over time no change occurs (for the good) one must at least assume, for practical purposes, that God is not at work in that person.
The reason this is basically incompatible with HP is that in HP, almost all Gryffindors are assumed to be “good” or “redeemed” just because they are in the “good” house or on the “good” side. It really doesn’t make any difference how they actually act. Lily assumes that Snape’s friends are evil while the Marauders are just berks because Snape’s friends use “Dark” magic. But we are actually never shown that the actions are any different, any more or less cruel, etc. In HP, it appears to be presented that the “good guys” can beat up kids on the train and leave them unconscious for hours and that’s okay, whereas if Draco breaks Harry’s nose and leaves him on the train, that helps us see how bad Draco is.
But if it were a true Calvinist perspective playing out in a piece of literature, the reader or protagonist would be encouraged to wonder about people supposedly on the good side, but who give no evidence of life, ethics, or purposes that are any better than the bad guys.
The problem with this post-DH comparison of HP to Calvinism is the perspective of non-Calvinists that if you are “elect” it doesn’t matter what you do, whereas in actual Calvinism, you are to “make your election sure” (St. Paul), through the evidence of your changed life.
Re: Response Part I
I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think Dan has been pretty clear (at least in other pieces) that the books show many signs of being written by a "cultural Christian", namely, someone who doesn't really understand the theology and accepts the feel-good ideas without further analysis. My own background is Lutheran, so I am influenced by fairly strong anti-Calvinist teachings of the 1960's-70's -- sorry, but I want to be upfront about it -- and so I have to reject any idea of an elect. ;-)
To me, the books reek of the popular cultural understanding of Calvinism, and I think that was what Dan was saying -- not that it was true Calvinist doctrine.
To belabor the point, the books struck me as being heavy proponents of what Bonhoeffer called "cheap grace", namly, the idea that all you had to do was say you believed in God and boom---you could do whatever you wanted. Or, in this case, that you believed in Dumbledore and boom---you could do whatever you wanted and were good no matter what.
Cultural Christians accept neither the Protestant idea that while accepting grace is easy, that is only the beginning of the real work, nor the Catholic idea that while God freely offers grace, you have to work at receiving it (as Mary quotes below). Some are quite scornful of those concepts, and sometimes I wonder if that might be part of the visceral hatred toward the Snape character, because...
Snape's suffering was because he refused to accept that viewpoint, and who knows whether it was he believed you had to work for it, sensed deep-down that the Gryffs were missing that spark that showed they had actually accepted grace, or something else. In any case, he rejected the idea that "saying" you liked Gryffindor or Dumbles Dumbles was enough in and of itself, which is akin to sinners knowing of God's grace but refusing to open their hearts to receive it -- the ultimate sin. One of the reasons I find his character so compelling is that he clearly knows evil and nobody struggles harder against it. The thing is: that fight cannot be pretty by its very nature (while she seems to want to say evil is ugly, it's actually quite pretty, shiny, easy and seductive -- it's the fight against it that is ugly). But Rowling cannot have an ugly Snape as a hero; her protagonists are all pretty.
Re: Response Part I
So much of her religious symbolism or influences are quite messy and I dislike analyzing the stories through that lense.
Plus, I truly think that her take on Snape, her unwillingness to see his heroism and the strength of much of his character, even though she was the one who conceived it and wrote it, is tied up in her personal hangups with Snape that she just can't set aside. So it colors everything that she says about him off the page, as well as colored her ability to write the "redemption" aspects of the character at the end of the book. That is, "redemption" from the point of view of the protagonist, which is necessary for the reader as we read the story through his eyes. She knew the "redemption" part was supposed to happen. She knew she needed to write it, but I believe it was her personal inability to truly conceive of it that prevented her from doing more than acknowledging that redemption "after the fact" (as it were) in the epilogue, and only then in a rather oblique way of the ASP namesake and "bravest man" comment.
So JKR's personal hangups really color things in the book. Ditto probably for Dumbledore. She says in the article I linked to that Dumbledore isn't really supposed to be "God", although he sometimes seems that way. Yet I tend to think that JKR's personal frustrations and mixed feelings about God are getting played out in her writing of Dumbledore -- so we flip back and forth to "love him" and "hate him" perspectives, without clear resolution.
Re: Response Part I
Now, though, it's going to take a bit to calm down after reading her interview and the comments on Voldy's being marked by the circumstances of his conception. What a truly terrible and vicious message to send children.
Re: Response Part I
And I believe it's the reason Snape had to die instead of a scene of reconciliation with Harry; it would have been too difficult for her to write so she took the
lazyeasy way out.Response Part II
“No matter how much of a bullying little shit James Potter was, we are never really asked to see him as anything but a hero. Lily treats Snape like dirt, but is still the byword for selfless love in the series. And of course Dumbledore, our epitome of goodness, is a manipulative self-serving bastard who plots world domination and raises Harry to be a sacrificial lamb. But in the end we are expected to view all of these people as heroes because they were Gryffindors and therefore virtuous by definition.”
As a strong Snape fan, I naturally abhor James, rather dislike Lily, and am not particularly pleased with Dumbledore. But I would challenge anyone to show exactly *where* in the series or in interviews JKR tells us that James is a hero, or even that we should view him favorably. Similarly, we are never actually told by JKR, either in the text or in interviews, that Lily was a wonderful saintly person. And we are specifically told by JKR that Dumbledore is Machiavellian. How anyone can get from that comment that JKR wants us to think of Dumbledore as a *real* epitome of goodness is beyond me. Yes, JKR did once tell us that she wanted us to view Dumbledore as the “epitome of goodness”. Well, of course she did. We are supposed to quite shocked in DH, not only by his past, but by Dumbledore’s manipulations of Harry and Snape.
It is readers who have decided that James was supposed to be a hero, I daresay because he’s Harry’s father, but other than learning that he died for the cause, he doesn’t get much good press even from the other characters (and there, almost only from his friends). We learn very little about Lily from any character and certainly not JKR until DH, when we mostly learn about her through Snape’s memories where we can draw our own conclusions. Prior to DH, some of the few things we learned were from interviews where JKR revealed to us that Lily was flirting with James during the Worst Memory scene. Of course, some assume that simply must mean that JKR approved of Lily flirting during the WM scene, but she certainly never said so. We also learn that Lily died for her child, but even JKR asserts that almost any mother would have done the same. Indeed, JKR has Narcissa risk her life for Draco, making her “saintliness” almost akin to Lily, solely on the basis of risking her life. But JKR isn’t actually saying a mother risking her life for a kid makes her a wonderful person.
JKR writes in a way popular with many more modern writers, quite different from just a few decades earlier, where the writer would actually tell the reader, either directly or through the conscious thought of the protagonist, the moral commentary of which the protagonist or reader was supposed to be aware. More lately, authors are far less likely to flat out tell you “and then Harry understood that his father was really just a bully” or some other such blatant, spoon-fed sort of messages. JKR’s approach, and she’s definitely not the only author doing this, is to put the information out there for the reader, and the reader should be able to tell that the “good guys” are actually quite flawed, some of the “bad guys” really aren’t so bad (like when we learn that Scrimgeour, who we’d been encouraged to dislike, dies attempting to protect info about Harry), and even some of the worst characters have a chance at redemption. In JKR’s case, redemption is always from their ability to love. So the Malfoys have a chance at redemption because they, or at least Narcissa, would sacrifice their life for their son.
Re: Response Part II
I think it is obvious Rowling views James and Sirius favorably when she wrote that 800-word prequel focused on their antics, where we are supposed to laugh when the two of them go Muggle-baiting, especially when combined with the frivolity in the epilogue around Ron's Muggle-baiting and Harry's tacit approval.
Searching through Accio Quotes I found in Rowling Answers 10 Questions About Harry
1. Why doesn't Fred appear in the woods at the end as well?
"Do you know what? I never even thought of Fred coming back. That's how I always planned it, from when the first book was finished, that the three marauders and his mother would come back. There were four heroes as it were in the previous generation and one of them betrayed the others, and then there were the three. So I wanted Harry to be surrounded by his mother and James and Sirius and Lupin, all of whom had died in a way for him. You know Lupin had laid down his life in Harry's battle, he didn't have to come back, he didn't have to fight. James had died trying to protect the family; Sirius very obviously had died fighting along with Harry, and then his mum who most explicitly had died for him. I never thought of bringing Fred back at all. It was all the previous generation, and they were all strongly parental figures for Harry."
-----------------
It is up to the reader to decide if she meant that the Marauders were heroes objectively or only to Harry.
Re: Response Part II
But does this mean that JKR necessarily considered their overall characters admirable? Look at her comments about Sirius. She speaks of him with rather strong reservations in interviews. So I think her mentioning him as heroic because he died for Harry and the cause in no way takes away her other interview as well as canon input about his considerable flaws.
Re: Response Part II
Then why was it as hard as pulling teeth to get Rowling to admit that Severus was at least some kind of hero, though not exactly? He took risks over a longer time. James and Lily defied Voldemort 3 times in a year and a half and then on their fourth encounter got killed. Severus was at risk of being killed by Voldemort for 3 years in the second war, had plenty of close calls where a failure of his Occlumency could have been the end of him (and the reader may add whatever time s/he believes Severus was acting against Voldemort in the first war). He knew it and went willingly. The only duty he was reluctant about (to put it mildly) was his promise to kill Dumbledore - he was willing to break it even if that meant his death by Unbreakable Vow. So why does Rowling have trouble agreeing that Severus was a hero (admitedly not a perfect one) but sees it as obvious that the Marauders were heroes, despite their flaws?
Re: Response Part II
Re: Response Part II
Re: Response Part II
Hear, hear!
That's one of the things that REALLY bothers me about Dumbledore: his emotional manipulation and - dare I say it - emotional abuse of Severus.
And the idea that sacrifice doesn't 'count' when it's penance - don't get me started. Considering where he started from and how little help he had along the way, Severus' moral growth is really something to be stunned at, IMHO. He had to figure it all out himself pretty much.
Re: Response Part II
I didn't expect him to tell a penitent, "You disgust me."
I know that the perceived reason for this reaction is Snape's incomplete penitence. He's only sorry because of Lily and not because of anyone else. Well, it's still a weird concept for this "cultural Catholic" to wrap her mind around.
Re: Response Part II
Now I'm curious about whether the actions and statements of characters in the canon show any inclination toward a Calvinist view. Are we simply *reading* the canon as showing, on the whole, a Calvinist view - which is supported by comments of JKR's and our knowledge of her religious background? Or are there specifics in canon that affirm one or another religious worldview, beyond AD's pontifications about "sorting too soon" and "your choices defining you"? Because really, Dumbledore's many profundities are often ambiguous or even contradictory, IMO.
Re: Response Part II
Now, I can't see anything in the least bit "noble" about his behaviour in the "Worst Memory" scene, so JKR must be arguing that it's not our deeds that define us but our "inner self" - and our inner self is anything the Creator decides it is!
Re: Response Part II
I would say it's the ultimate irony that Severus' ultimate demise came about for thinking too *muggle*.
Oh, indeed, indeed. It's almost painful. There's something about the irony of Severus' life that just screams at one, you know? I'm betting, what with his nicely sarcastic temperament and his knowledge of himself (which I see as being a prerequisite for his skill at Occlumency), that he's got a way of bleakly laughing at it all sometimes, just to stay sane. He opens my newest in-progress fic (an AU look at his year as Headmaster - as a werewolf) with this thought:
'The irony of his life was going to turn lethal one of these days, of that he was sure. Assuming Minerva's pointed glares down the breakfast table didn't do the job first.'
Response Part III
As for Dumbledore, I suppose we’re all mostly trained into this notion that the old grey-bearded wizard just *has* to be good and wise. Even when JKR blows this apart in DH, directly calls Dumbledore “Machiavellian” in interviews and comments on betting that people were shocked that they were siding with Snape over Dumbledore (what, don’t readers think she *meant* for us to sympathize with Snape at that point?), still large numbers of readers persist in assuming that JKR wants us to keep seeing the good and wise and saintly grey haired wizard.
I agree with Hemmen’s point toward the end of the essay where he comments on the confused mess of religious symbolism. Too many of the symbols are mixed, with some characters apparently switching their symbolic meaning through the books.
On the whole, I think JKR’s supposed “Calvinistic” thread is really just manufactured through a misunderstanding of what Calvinism is, and much of the criticism of JKR making heroes or saints out of James, Lily and Dumbledore stems from our own assumptions and not what JKR actually wrote or said.
Re: Response Part III
Re: Response Part III
But thanks for explaining a bit more about Calvinism, because I certainly didn't know.
As to the Gryffindors being heroes, it's a bit hard to sum up briefly, but I do get a strong vibe from the books that we are supposed to like them and see them as heroes. And I'm not an imperceptive reader, really. This vibe has been confirmed in Rowling's interviews. Also, I'd say she clearly wants us to see Harry as good and heroic, and, after the last two books, I see him as neither. He is altogether too passive and thoughtless; he never thanks anyone or apologizes for anything, and he does some dreadful things.
So I just think that Rowling and I have very different views as to what makes a person good and heroic. Just my two cents.
Re: Response Part III
I feel that many readers assume that because JKR has James risk his life and finally die in the war against Voldemort, he's somehow absolved of all his bullying in the past and we're supposed to think he's just fine. JKR does not say that, nor does she really even imply it, in my opinion. It's just that in our past experience with children's literature, there's usually the assumption that a character who dies nobly for a good cause is an all-round good person. That simply isn't so in JKR's world, and I don't think she means us to think it's that way.
Re: Response Part III
Re: Response Part III
Her comments about that upset me almost more than all her denials that Snape was a hero. The reason is that she made it clear with those comments that not only did she sympathize with Dumbledore's running of the school, but that she **expected** all her readers to do so (which demonstrated, one could argue, an amazing contempt for the readership). So, for example, when Dumbles decides to send *children* into the dungeons alone -- with no adults -- into an area where he had just been told there was a troll (and we learned from McGonagall just how dangerous they were), we are expected to **accept as meet, right and salutary** his complete disdain for the lives of children -- apparently solely because they were Slytherin and Hufflepuff children. After all, only Gryffindor lives count. And that was in the fall of Book 1!
"still large numbers of readers persist in assuming that JKR wants us to keep seeing the good and wise and saintly grey haired wizard."
I suspect that is becasue she continues to describe him a good, albeit Machiavellian, and excuses his choices towards Harry as necessary. In fact, she never does indicate any criticism of his other actions that show a disdain for the value of anyone other than Harry and the Gryffs. ;-)
Response IV
I have to agree with your characterization of Snape's attitude toward his own redemption being rather Catholic. He does seem to focus on his penance to make up for his actions. And Lily does kind of become like "Mary" to him. I don't see his love for Lily, years after her death, as a love for a real person, but a kind of love for a symbol of goodness.
Of course, I don't think Lily was really much more than an average, flawed somewhat self righteous girl. But for Snape, she became a symbol. He acts toward her like a chivalrous knight doing his deeds for the pure, unknowable, lady whose favor he craves, but because she's dead, he can never have it.
Re: Response IV
That's it exactly. I just can't picture him obsessively pining over a somewhat shallow, ordinary and not particularly empathetic girl for that long - he's got more resiliency and complexity than that.
And RE Sev as a knight - yes, yes, EXACTLY! There's something so...courtly about him at times. His devotion to duty, his appreciation of the beautiful from afar, all of it. The other figure I associate him with is the monk, though the devotion to the Lady there is of course from another, far less earthly angle than with the knight.
I enjoy fanfics that challenge that in him, that make him see that goodness, and love and peace aren't things that have to be earned through blood, sweat and tears, that sometimes they are just given, that there is such a thing as grace.
You make some great arguments here.
That is standard Catholic doctrine. Just saying.
Father Gerard Manley Hopkins put it this way: "Grace is everywhere. But it is like milk in a cow's udder. You have to work at it to receive it." But we believe that God loves EVERYBODY, with no exceptions. It is up to us human beings to respond to God's love, and that is the work we have to do. We have to be willing to receive Grace.
I guess, like Wynnleaf, I get a bit agitated at seeing my faith misrepresented. The point of Catholic Severus as i see it is that, in Catholic doctrine, Sev's good acts matter and he clearly can be redeemed. In Rowling-world, they don't and he can't.
I won't argue you there, but in my experience what is 'standard doctrine' and what actually manages to become common practice and mindset amongst the followers of a particular belief system can be two totally different things.
I agree that a Catholic Severus would be imbued with the impression that his good acts mattered, and that by doing good he could be redeemed, but in my own opinion he seems to feel that the only way that he can be redeemed, in fact the only way that his life can really mean something at all is if he does penance by sacrificing himself, even unto death for Harry. He seems to believe (and I think that Dumbledore did nothing to dissuade him in this belief, but in fact encouraged it) that salvation is something that has to be earned by his own good works, suffering and sacrifice.
Now that sounds fairly harsh, I suppose, and I do understand that current standard Catholic doctrine doesn't support that harsh an interpretation, however, if Severus had been raised Catholic (and it was on his father's side), then it does bear remembering that it would have been a pre and just post Vatican II (1962-1965), and quite possibly Irish Catholic upbringing and mindset, which was most likely much different than a modern North American one.
Having grown up in a small, rural French Canadian town, and gone to a Catholic elementary school, I can tell you that in such a secluded area the Catholicism practiced was much stricter, and much more 'Old World' than one might find in the cities. So I think that when assessing a character's possible religious background it is best to keep in mind the timeframe of the story and area in which the character lives, when trying to interpret the 'flavor' of the belief system then might have been raised under.
That is all I meant with this comment, and in no way meant to disparage your religion or beliefs
I won't argue you there, but in my experience what is 'standard doctrine' and what actually manages to become common practice and mindset amongst the followers of a particular belief system can be two totally different things.
Oh, well said! Very good to keep in mind in general, and when trying to sort out the worldviews of HP - with or without the author interviews and comments - well. What a tangle it can be! As you say, there's official doctrine, then there's "common practice," and that varies depending on the era, the region, and the ethnic group. I think you're right, that Snape's upbringing in, and by, an almost completely pre-Vatican II mindset, a working-class one at that, may set him in a very different context than almost any other major HP character. (Except, perhaps, Tom Riddle?)
Have you read the Volkskrant interview? It can be found at:
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2
I think you're right, JKR does think of herself as Christian. Her notion of what 'Christian' is simply doesn't tally with mine...or apparently a lot of other people's.
Thanks for all you comments - it's great to have some details about Calvinism from someone who's very familiar with it. I can imagine it's frustrating to see misrepresentations of it, however - though my understanding of Hemmen's article (as I think someone else pointed out here) was that the Potterverse doesn't actually work according to Calvinist doctrine, but rather according to a completely misunderstood notion of what Calvinist Election is.
Rowling also says (1) that she gave Voldemort a choice. It is impossible to see this in the book, and some of what we find out about him in HBP contradicts her statement. Yes, he did have a choice as to how far into darkness he would go, but he was never going to be normal, and he was never going to be capable of love. And that was *not his fault*.
(2) That Harry was simply good. No, he's not. I don't see him as particularly good at all.
With both Harry and Voldemort, I see the author being quite deterministic. The choices these characters make - even the choice to torture - are meaningless. The one is good, the other evil, no matter what they actually do.
I was also struck by your point that Severus dedicates himself in service to the Lady & her Child, the Chosen One, like a Catholic following the Marian devotion. (With apologies to all my Catholic friends for any clumsiness of this non-Catholic's phrasing!) Your theory of Snape as a pre-Vatican II working-class Catholic makes a lot of sense to me, and I'm glad people are taking up the discussion. What fun reading! What a lot of thinky thinking! \o/
Most of all, I like your concern for the details. Further thoughts, "proper essay" or not, will be more great reading!
And, as to JKR, the following quote from the interview someone else linked below says it all:
"I lead an intensely spiritual life, and even though I don't have a terribly clear and structured idea about it, I do believe that after you die some part of you stays alive some way or other."
Saying she lacks a "terribly clear and structured idea" is an understatement. ;-)
What I wonder, then, is what the role of the priest would be to someone like Severus, if he was Catholic? I can see his appearances before Dumbledore, for example, to be a sort of confession. He was given penance, specifically set to give recompense by protecting Harry, but he was never really forgiven. Dumbledore, however, is not an ordained priest (that we know of). As a Catholic, wouldn't Snape have sought a priest to be his mediator before God? Or is this a perversion of Catholicism, with Severus as Catholic by upbringing and sentiment, but not by practice?
Another question I have: is Severus seeking forgiveness (and if so, only God's forgiveness matters, right -- it's on Lily whether she forgives him or not, but it doesn't really matter), or is he trying to save his own soul (which he is later willing to forfeit for Dumbledore, anyway -- not sure what Catholic teachings on euthanasia are, but I doubt they favor it), or is he acting out of love somehow -- or is this, again, a mistaken Catholicism?
Forgive my ignorance. I'm not Catholic, although I live with a lapsed Irish Catholic, who is my theological reference for these kinds of questions -- but he hates HP.
First, I didn't and don't see Severus as particularly devout. As you know, I (and Bohemianspirit) write him as a churchgoing Catholic post-DH and/or when with his family, but, during his years at Hogwarts, he'd pretty much be struggling on his own. And I see him as the sort who is faithful, but questions. There's canon for that, isn't there?
So-
I did read Dumbledore in the role of the priest in HBP, since I was sure Severus had confessed his sins to him. In DH, I couldn't see Dumbledore that way at all. Yes, the Sacrament of confession is an apology to God. Borolin (aka Whitehound) also writes Severus as working-class Catholic, and she has him say that he would like to confess and receive absolution, but that he didn't want to endanger a priest who might be caught and questioned by Voldemort or the Death Eaters. In any case, as I understand it, if you can't confess you can just say an act of contrition and you are absolved. But, if you can, you are supposed to act to correct the harm you've done. Severus obviously does so.
I don't see Severus as just trying to save his own soul. A truly repentant person isn't thinking of himself, but of the person/people harmed. In that conversation on the hilltop, Severus is thinking only of Lily, and not of himself. His repentance is real. (BTW, Rowling doesn't know the difference between repentance and remorse, but I've said that before.)
Euthanasia - Severus's reaction to being asked to do this is completely consistent with his being Catholic. He thinks it wrong and doesn't want to do it. Actually, there's a distinction between actively killing and refusing extraordinary care. You are allowed to request being disconnected from machines, either for yourself or for your loved ones. That isn't killing. It's merely accepting the process of death, which is part of life. But it's forbidden to actually kill an ill person. That's why so many of us had seen Dumbledore as an animated corpse throughout HBP. Then Severus wouldn't really be killing him, but just allowing him to die. And that would be okay.
Not sure I've answered your questions. In any case, to me, what it all comes down to is free will. In Catholicism, as well as mainline Protestantism, free will is paramount; it matters. In Rowling world, it does not. At least, I can't see that it does.
And, probably, JKR was sampling religious ideas in her story with glee, starting with a base of religious fatalism, dumping in non-Protestant backgrounds for questionable characters, sprinkling in occult motifs, and in the end, coming up with a thoroughly gooey mess.
I have the terrible feeling that you're probably on the right track here. ::sigh::
I also don't think a priest has the option to communicate what someone says in confession, so if he were to tell someone about the Wizarding World, his story might not find a receptive audience. Also, the priest's information might not include knowledge of the hostility you mention, since what is essential to Severus is betrayal of a friend, and not necessarily the basis of that betrayal. Betrayal of a friend to an enemy can occur in many contexts.
Also, the whole idea of a Messiah is based on a prophecy, I think. Therefore, such ideas might not be alien to some priests.
Finally, the targeting of such a priest by Voldemort seems unlikely, as why would priests even by on his radar?
But I agree: Severus was not ready to embrace his Muggle heritage at the time he first went to Dumbledore.
Not necessarily -- there were quite a few Doctors of the Church who practiced magic openly.
Persephone
Not necessarily -- there are Catholic wizards and witches in the Potterverse, as seen in the ghosts of the Fat Friar and the nuns mentioned early in the series. There may well be quite a few Catholics in the Wizarding World, given that Malfoy Manor contains a priest-hole, probably from the days of the Puritans. There may not be many wizard-priests, but I really can't think that there would be none whatsoever, given the honor and respect that having one brought to a family traditionally. (And it's possible the fat Friar may have been a priest, not a brother, and therefore able to hear confession, even after death.)
Persephone
Good point!